On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Dave Sowerby <[email protected]>wrote:
> Ah, my apologises - I forgot to check Jira! > > Is there any schedule for a release of the 1.x codebase? Or even a 1.4.1? > > Cheers, > > Dave. > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Dave Sowerby <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hey guys, > >> > >> I've just taken a functional binding.jms service and in order to try > >> and utilise this as a more traditional JMS service, I added the > >> tuscany:wireFormat.jmsObject markup to the composite file.... > >> > >> However, when I attempt to invoke an operation with no parameters I > >> get the following stack: > >> > >> Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: JMS ObjectMessage payload > >> not Serializable: null > >> at > >> > org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.jms.provider.ObjectMessageProcessor.createJMSMessage(ObjectMessageProcessor.java:63) > >> at > >> > org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.jms.provider.AbstractMessageProcessor.insertPayloadIntoJMSMessage(AbstractMessageProcessor.java:83) > >> at > >> > org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.jms.wireformat.jmsobject.runtime.WireFormatJMSObjectReferenceInterceptor.invokeRequest(WireFormatJMSObjectReferenceInterceptor.java:81) > >> at > >> > org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.jms.wireformat.jmsobject.runtime.WireFormatJMSObjectReferenceInterceptor.invoke(WireFormatJMSObjectReferenceInterceptor.java:63) > >> at > >> > org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.jms.provider.RRBJMSBindingInvoker.invoke(RRBJMSBindingInvoker.java:202) > >> > >> This operation has the signature of: > >> > >> public void throwException(); > >> > >> Looking through the wireformat code I can't see anywhere that it > >> checks that the payload isn't null before throwing this exception - is > >> this what we should expect? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Dave. > > > > Hi Dave > > > > We came across this and it was fixed in the 1.x codebase under > TUSCANY-2799. > > > > Regards > > > > Simon > > > We haven't discussed it yet Dave but we'll have to do something as people have been making quite a lot of changes in 1.x. Personally I would probably prefer a 1.5 in a little while. What's your urgency on this one? Simon
